Propositionally Simple Judgments>
Moving on now, we realize that in any case a nominal and an adjectival presentation suffice for the unity of a judgment. Individual simple-independent meanings are not enough for any actual independent meaning (which is a complete thought-meaning). But, two suffice for this purpose, namely, in the form “N is A”–in the subject position, a nominal meaning, in the “predicate position”, an arbitrary nominal or non-nominal meaning. In this way, we acquire the basic form of a propositionally simple judgment. It is, as far as that goes, the traditional understanding, as actually passed down, to treat the “categorical judgment” as basic form. However, the tradition goes further and immediately puts two basic forms here, “S is P”, “S is not P”. These are forms designated by the class-name “categorical judgments”, which, however, also designates other forms related in terms of general ways of composition, especially the plural judgments to be discussed later. What is characteristic of all categorical judgments is that, grounded in a compound nominal positing or a multifold (pieced together) nominal positing as basic positing, is a positing−single or multifold−built upon that, namely, in such a way that the positings are positive or affirmative or negative. The first component is the subject component. It posits the subject-object, which is conscious noematically as the substrate of the subject-positing. And the predicate-positing is built upon that−whence the break. The noun that functions in the subject function–through which the subject-positing therefore goes as positing-under–functions for precisely that reason differently than the same noun in a different function, for instance, an object function, whereby, the positing performed there is precisely not positing-under. The noun is not “subjectum” (ὑποκείμενον). Do not confuse subject-presentation and subject-object!